Wiggins, a man in love! - Page 68 - Cyclingnews Forum

Go Back   Cyclingnews Forum > Road > The Clinic

The Clinic The Clinic is the only place on Cyclingnews where you can discuss doping-related issues. Ask questions, discuss positives or improvements to procedures.

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #671  
Old 01-18-13, 15:47
mastersracer mastersracer is offline
Banned
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Posts: 929
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by The Hitch View Post
And some who take both A and A as evidence that he is clean.

But i dont get why this is directed at me. I never did take both A and A as evidence of Sky doping. I have actually joined with the sky fans in attacking some of the more extreme posters on many of their conspiracy theorists.

If you have a problem with people who take everything as evidence of doping conspiracy why not complain to them?

Why are all the complaints and whines (and ill admit they are legitimate) about what the hog or sniper or others say, constantly directed at me and other who do not have anything to do with them?

And the - oh but if wiggins hadnt praised lance people would still critiscse him, argument doesnt do much for me.

First of all because i am not one of those people.

Secondly because wiggins DID say those things about Lance. To take this line of reasoning a step or 2 further one could defend someone like vino with - oh even if he didnt get caught for blood doping and ride in the epo era and admit he doped, some people would still take that as evidence of doping.

Maybe if wiggins hadnt shown lance so much love people would be spinning it another way. But he DID say all those things and therefore we take what he said and base arguments on that.
Anyone who wins the Tour is suspicious - it is simply a matter of base rates and the fact that anti-doping measures are premised on providing evidence of guilt, not innocence. The problem with this forum is that there are a billion facile comments about specific 'evidence' that is provided mainly because 1) people with no actual evidence want to appear as though they have privileged information, or 2) are providing post-hoc rationalizations for their irrational dislike for certain riders (1 and 2 are not mutually exclusive).

What a rider says about another rider is not evidence of doping or not doping. period. It is a facile conjecture to suppose it is. Such comments are equally consistent with both. Yes, Wiggins should be regarded with suspicion, but for the simple reason of base rates.
Reply With Quote
  #672  
Old 01-18-13, 15:56
SundayRider SundayRider is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Posts: 1,067
Default

I have a strong feeling something will happen/come out with Wiggins this year, probably before the Tour.
Reply With Quote
  #673  
Old 01-18-13, 16:12
oldcrank's Avatar
oldcrank oldcrank is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Posts: 711
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by mastersracer View Post
Anyone who wins the Tour is suspicious.
"I get pis-sed off when I hear you can't win the Tour without doping"
Gregory James LeMond (17-January-2013)
Reply With Quote
  #674  
Old 01-18-13, 16:55
Freddythefrog Freddythefrog is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Posts: 311
Default Oh look at that

Quote:
Originally Posted by oldcrank View Post
"I get pis-sed off when I hear you can't win the Tour without doping"
Gregory James LeMond (17-January-2013)
I did not spot the date. Staying near you is he ? I hope he knows all about the recent moves.
Reply With Quote
  #675  
Old 01-18-13, 17:28
The Hitch's Avatar
The Hitch The Hitch is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Location: London.
Posts: 22,939
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Wallace and Gromit View Post
I'm claiming no great insight into what Wiggo means.

He says an awful lot of stuff that needs to be carefully interpreted, even when seemingly a simple factual statement such as his comment about only having raced against Lance once. He also says a lot of things that are clearly untrue, such as the comment about the raffle being about to be drawn after the podium presentation in Paris. And he also says things that you rarely hear from other sportsmen such as advising fans not to drink too much (also in Paris) or advising that there's a free bar after the event (in his SPOTY speech).

Thus my conclusion that one should be unusually careful when trying to deduce the real meaning from comments made by Wiggo.

I would think the picture of Lance on his book was to attract attention. At the back end of 2009 when it was published, he was very low profile media-wise, whereas Lance was obviously a highly recognisable figure.

You say everything wiggins says needs to be interpeted carefully.

Well then could you please interpret it carefully and tell us what he meant when he said he loved lance.

Also could you interpret carefully and tell us what he meant when he said that teams with doping doctors should be kicked off the tour de france. And when he said people who are working with Ferrari are doping. ANd what he meant 2 years later when he said that Ferraris number 1 client - lance, was actually clean.

Carefully interpret those things for us, if you think we arent capable of carefully interpreting them and tell us what he meant.

Cheers.
__________________
The Hitch: Winner 2013 Vuelta cq game. Winner, Velorooms prediction game 2012, 2013 (still undefeated). Currently 2nd all time cq rankings.
Quote:
Originally Posted by pre 2009 wiggins
If there's a 1% suspicion or doubt that a team is working with certain doctors, then they shouldn't be invited to the Tour de France - as simple as that.
journalist with integrity.
Reply With Quote
  #676  
Old 01-18-13, 17:33
The Hitch's Avatar
The Hitch The Hitch is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Location: London.
Posts: 22,939
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by mastersracer View Post

What a rider says about another rider is not evidence of doping or not doping. period. It is a facile conjecture to suppose it is. Such comments are equally consistent with both. Yes, Wiggins should be regarded with suspicion, but for the simple reason of base rates.
So when Indurain comes out and says they have nothing on Lance, we are not allowed to find anything suspicious in that?

Got you

Either way the case is different with Wiggins becuase he claims to be the model anti doper so when we find proof of him praising Lance, he is actually contradicting himself.

And more importantly contradicting things he said in 2007.

The idea that we are not allowed to ask questions over peoples behavior is buill****. By your same logic there was absolutely nothing suspcision about Armstrong chasing down seimeoni or spiting on Bassons.

When someone says that they find doping so reviolting that they dont know if they can come back to the sport then 2 years later come back, deniy they ever felt that way, are best friends with the dopers and curse at anyone who asks questions, I and others reserve the right to scratch our heads and ask - hang on, what is going on here.

Your - oh but you are not allowed to ask these questions, bull**** resembles lawyers using loopholes to make sure their clients dont have to answer questions in court.

Thankfully this isnt a court of law and if peoples behaviour is suspicious we are perfectly within our rights to poiint that out.
__________________
The Hitch: Winner 2013 Vuelta cq game. Winner, Velorooms prediction game 2012, 2013 (still undefeated). Currently 2nd all time cq rankings.
Quote:
Originally Posted by pre 2009 wiggins
If there's a 1% suspicion or doubt that a team is working with certain doctors, then they shouldn't be invited to the Tour de France - as simple as that.
journalist with integrity.

Last edited by The Hitch; 01-18-13 at 17:41.
Reply With Quote
  #677  
Old 01-18-13, 18:04
hondated hondated is offline
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Posts: 21
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by thehog View Post
The other problem Wiggins has with Lance questions is he really is responding in regards to himself.

He knows that deep down the journalist is asking about him when they ask about Lance.
Well given LA's admitted to doping and his admission has now been broadcast its now time for BW who is at the moment the face of cycle racing to give us his opinion of LA even if it is as ludicrous as his previous one.
He could perhaps do it alongside Sean Yates who has also been remarkably quiet on this subject.

Last edited by hondated; 01-18-13 at 18:05. Reason: spelling
Reply With Quote
  #678  
Old 01-18-13, 18:52
Benotti69's Avatar
Benotti69 Benotti69 is online now
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 2010
Posts: 12,555
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by hondated View Post
Well given LA's admitted to doping and his admission has now been broadcast its now time for BW who is at the moment the face of cycle racing to give us his opinion of LA even if it is as ludicrous as his previous one.
He could perhaps do it alongside Sean Yates who has also been remarkably quiet on this subject.
How about they do it live from motomans shop
__________________
"ahaha, ever had the feeling you been cheated?" JL SF Jan'78
Reply With Quote
  #679  
Old 01-18-13, 21:40
pmcg76 pmcg76 is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 2,944
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by The Hitch View Post
And some who take both A and A as evidence that he is clean.

But i dont get why this is directed at me. I never did take both A and A as evidence of Sky doping. I have actually joined with the sky fans in attacking some of the more extreme posters on many of their conspiracy theorists.

If you have a problem with people who take everything as evidence of doping conspiracy why not complain to them?

Why are all the complaints and whines (and ill admit they are legitimate) about what the hog or sniper or others say, constantly directed at me and other who do not have anything to do with them?

And the - oh but if wiggins hadnt praised lance people would still critiscse him, argument doesnt do much for me.

First of all because i am not one of those people.

Secondly because wiggins DID say those things about Lance. To take this line of reasoning a step or 2 further one could defend someone like vino with - oh even if he didnt get caught for blood doping and ride in the epo era and admit he doped, some people would still take that as evidence of doping.

Maybe if wiggins hadnt shown lance so much love people would be spinning it another way. But he DID say all those things and therefore we take what he said and base arguments on that.
Hitch, I don't always agree with your opinions but you have been the outstanding poster in this thread and I would echo your thoughts on SKY and Wiggins in general.

I also would loathe to be lumped in with some of the posters you mentioned as I think some of them are complete idiots.
Reply With Quote
  #680  
Old 01-18-13, 23:32
sniper sniper is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Posts: 6,167
Default

Has Wiggins' 2009 bloodprofile ever been seriously compared to that of Landis 2006 by anyone other than Landis himself? Wasn't he saying Wiggins 2009 profile ressembled that of his 2006 profile?

I found this on some forum from 2009 or 2010:

Quote:
I hate to say it but Bradley's result from the 2nd Tour rest day looks funny. Hemoglobin should fall during the Tour but his rose. Here's whatantidoping expert Michael Ashenden had to say about Floyd Landis' hemoglobin results from the 2006 Tour:

"Going from 15.5 to 16.1 (in hemoglobin) is not that unusual when not competing," Ashenden said by phone from Australia. "But it is very unusual to see an increase after a hard week of cycling. You’d expect it to be the reverse. You’d expect that to fall in a clean athlete. An increase like this in the midst of the Tour de France would be highly, highly unlikely.

"There’s nothing where I could point to one value and say, ‘This guy definitely doped.’ But it raises red flags for me. I would definitely recommend to anti-doping authorities that an athlete presenting these values should be target-tested for blood doping."

Wiggins' hemoglobin result rose from about 14.4 on the first rest day to about 15.2 on the second rest day.

That's the problem with making these results public. An anomalous result can look bad, and there's no way to know if there was some kind of sampling error. Landis, on the other hand, did try to to keep his results from USADA for as long as possible.
http://justcycling.myfastforum.org/a...t__t_3430.html

Has the rise from 14.4 to 15.2 ever been addressed by vaughters?
Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT. The time now is 11:30.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Copyright 2006 - 2009 Future Publishing Limited. All rights reserved. Future Publishing Limited is part of the Future plc group. Future Publishing Limited is a company registered in England and Wales with company registration number 2008885 whose registered office is at Beauford Court 30 Monmouth Street Bath, UK BA1 2BW England.